Introduction
Nowadays, it became a common practice in commercial colleges to teach students that the notion of ethics somehow applies to business practices. However, the objective reality points out these types of suggestions as utterly fallacious, simply because commercial activities, concerned with generating a monetary profit, are being unethical by definition. As Aviva Geva had put it in her article “Myth and Ethics in Business”: “Business is expected to do whatever is necessary to succeed, and is not expected to be concerned with abstract morality. Business is a one-dimensional, purely profit-seeking enterprise. Profit is not just prioritized; it is elevated to the exclusion of all other interests” (2001, p. 585). The watching of the 1992 movie “Glendarry Glen Ross” and the reading of Sam Foster’s novel “Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce” had once again confirmed the full validity of earlier suggestions, as both: movie and the novel, promote the idea that it is only individuals fully focused on pursuing their corporate agenda that has a chance of succeeding in today’s highly dynamic business environment. In this paper, we will aim to substantiate this thesis even further by comparing three characters from Foster’s novel (Harkness, Liz Peterson, Jack Kendrick) to three characters from the movie (John Williamson, Blake, Shelley Levene).
Liz Peterson and Blake
As it appears from Foster’s novel’s initial chapters, the foremost reason why Liz Peterson was able to succeed spectacularly in the field of selling real estate, is that she did not have any illusions as to the fact that considerations of conventional morality may somehow apply to business. She was well aware of the fact that, when it comes to dealing with clients, it is the matter of foremost importance to ensure that these clients would be playing by agent’s rules of a game, and not the vice versa: “Negotiation was a man’s game, and being able to go toe-to-toe with them and give as good as she got was the first rule she’d learned” (2002, 18). Moreover, she was also aware of the fact that, for a particular real estate broker to be able to stay afloat, in the professional sense of this word, he or she would have to be willing to take advantage of his colleagues’ weaknesses, if such an opportunity presents itself.
This was exactly the reason why Liz never hesitated threatening her trainee Montgomery with the prospect of breaking his career, if he refused sleeping with the client, in order to ensure closing of a deal with him: “You don’t do this and but only will you not be hired by ACRE, but I will personally see to it that everyone in the business knows that you got drunk at dinner, insulted a client and blew a big deal. No one will hire you” (2002, 73). Despite her physical appearance of a fragile woman, Liz possessed a strongly defined masculine mentality, which is why, while dealing with her personal life’s challenges, she never ceased referring to its professional agenda as such that represented her foremost existential priority. It appears that Liz never doubted the fact that there are only two categories of people: winners and losers. For a particular individual to end up a winner, he must be willing to build his career on the shattered dreams of those who had proven too weak.
Such Liz’s attitudes resonate perfectly well with that of Blake, from “Glendarry Glen Ross” movie, who delivered a powerful speech in front of four sales representatives, while insisting that there simply cannot be a good enough excuse for a particular real estate agent to justify its professional unsuccessfulness. Just as Liz, Blake firmly believed that, in the field of real estate business, there could only be two categories of professionals – winners and losers: “I made $970,000 last year. How much you make? You see pal, that’s who I am, and you’re nothing. Nice guy? I don’t give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. You want to work here – close!” (00.11.56). Just as Liz, Blake had repeatedly implied that the particulars of how closing is being achieved should be of no concern to an agent, for as long as he succeeds with it. In its turn, this can be explained by Blake’s supreme ability to perceive surrounding reality for what it really is. There is only one fundamental principle in highly lucrative real estate business, out of which the multitude of other rules and regulations derive – survival of the fittest. There are a lot of potential investors out there, who simply sit on their money – it is agents’ foremost task to get these investors to sign a contract, so that their money would be put to work: “They are (buyers) sitting out there, waiting to give you their money. Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?” (00.12.27). As the context of Blake’s speech implies – he was perfectly aware of the fact that; whereas, money cannot buy people happiness, it sure can do make their misery much more enjoyable. Therefore, it was not by a pure coincidence that both: Blake and Liz had a particular taste for driving status-cars – BMW and Lexus.
Apparently, both characters perceived driving these cars as an external confirmation of their existential superiority. And, the main reason why Liz and Blake were endowed with an acute feeling of superiority, in regards to their colleagues, is that they have learned to refer to the application of ‘morality’ to business as being utterly counter-productive. It appears that, unlike what was the case with their coworkers, Blake and Lease understood perfectly well that people’s tendency to choose in favor of moral behavior could never be referred to as ‘thing in itself’. It is only societies with properly functioning market-based economy, which provide citizens with the luxury to indulge in ethical behavior, while addressing life’s challenges. However, the proper functioning of a market-based economy can only be ensured if ‘experts on morality’ are being forbidden from meddling with economic affairs. Therefore, even though the characters of Blake and Liz cannot be thought of as being particularly appealing, both individuals do present us with a clear example of how sober-minded businessmen should deal with their work-related challenges.
Harkness and Williamson
As we have pointed out earlier, it is utterly inappropriate to think that commercial practices are subjected to the rules of conventional ethics. How Liz and Blake went about executing their professional duties, illustrates the full validity of this suggestion. However, there are other two characters in the novel and movie, whose behavioral attitudes at the workplace remind us of the ones of Liz and Blake – Harkness and Williamson. The most prominent psychological trait, shared by both characters, is their strongly defined sense of professional goal-orientedness. Here is what Harkness had told Jack Kendrick, while dealing with his unwillingness to apply an additional effort, to ensure closing of a deal: “Jack, I guess I didn’t make myself clear. When I said, ‘You are going to sign off the file, and you’re going to do it now,’ what I meant was that manager of the office was going to sign off the file and to do it now. File approval is the responsibility of the manager of the office” (2002, 14). Such Harkness’ insistence reveals the fact that he was perfectly aware of what the concept of corporate responsibility stands for – a manager’s ability to make prompt executive decisions, despite facing certain legal risks.
Unlike Kendrick, who believed that it was possible to reconcile the concept of generating a commercial profit with the concept of a complete legal lawfulness, Harkness was perfectly aware that it is in the very nature of successful commercial enterprises to constantly balance on the edge of law: “I’m tired of all this ethical shit,’ Harness spat. ‘We close the books for the year as of the end of business today. Today, Jack. Not next week, not tomorrow; today” (2002, 13). As it appears from this quotation, Harkness was smart enough to understand that real estate agents cannot possibly gain professional excellence, while being fully preoccupied with following the strict word of law. After all, there is a variety of different ways for even the clearest laws to be reinterpreted – this is why we have lawyers, in the first place.
Harkness’ stance, in regards to the subject matter, closely matches Williamson’s professional attitudes. Just as it was the case with Harkness, Williamson could not care less about excuses, utilized by sales agents to explain their lack of professional enthusiasm. While talking to Shelly Levene, Williamson had made it perfectly clear to his subordinate that, in the field of real estate trade, it is only agents’ ability to promptly close ‘leads’ that counts – those agents who cannot generate sales have no place in business: “I do what I’m hired to do – you might do the same. I am hired to watch the leads, to marshal my sales force. I’m given a policy. My job is to do that. Anybody falls below a certain mark, I’m directed. I’m not permitted to give them the premium leads” (00.25.46). Just as it was the case with Harkness, Williamson understood perfectly well that it would be impossible to ensure office’s proper functioning, unless employees are being equally subjected to the internal rules of corporate discipline, regardless of the extent of their seniority or the nature of their domestic problems might be. After all, there can only be so many natural resources, but a so-called ‘human resources’ are fully replaceable.
It was namely Williamson’s ‘coldness’, which Levene used to refer to as an indication of his boss’ unprofessionalism: “(Levene): You’re a shithead Williamson… You don’t belong in this business… Listen to me now – your partner depends on you, and you go with him and for him, or you shit… you can’t exist alone” (01.25.43). Nevertheless, by giving good ‘leads’ to his best agents, Williamson had simply proven himself an efficient manager. This is because, whatever illogical it might sound – when it comes to dealing with agents who make living on being given a percentage from their sales, it is only successful agents who qualify for an additional leverage in form of good ‘leads’. It is only people capable of helping themselves, who may be helped, which explains why banks prefer giving credits to those who do not need any money, as opposed to those who claim that, without being given a monetary credit, their lives would be destroyed. Apparently, Williamson was smart enough to realize the full appropriateness of this type of approach, while addressing the complaints of his underachieving salesmen.
Jack Kendrick and Shelley Levene
The last two characters from “Glendarry Glen Ross” and “Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce” that appear comparable, due to specifics of their professional attitudes, are Jack Kendrick and Shelley Levene. This is because, while on the line of executing their professional duties, both characters never ceased being affected by considerations of abstract morality, which in its turn, undermined the effectiveness of their performance.
As we know from the novel, the reason why Kendrick got fired from his job in Harkness’s office, is because he refused to sign contract with the client on the account of this client being unaware of deal’s full spectrum of legal details: “The disclosure statements show he (Donaldson) represented the Landlord. And that he also represented the Tenant. Landlord knows he was representing both of them, his consent form is right there, but I’m not sure the Tenant knows” (2002, p. 12). In other words, Kendrick’s well-developed sense of ethics had prevented his employer from generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in income. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Kendrick ended up losing his job. Moreover, it appears that Kendrick never ceased being instilled with the sense of guilt, on the account of what had happened, which reveals the actual essence of the character’s psychological anxieties, he experienced prior to being interviewed by Miles Preston. Kendrick was well aware of the fact that; whereas, his refusal to sign a deal was morally justified, it never made it less commercially unethical: “This was it. If Preston judged his action as overly-zealous or rigidly legalistic, Jack had no chance at this job” (2002, 37). Even though Foster portrays Kendrick in rather favorable light, there seems to be no logically substantiated reason as to why this character’s initial stance could not have been referred to as ‘rigidly legalistic’ – after all, by refusing to put his signature upon the contract, Kendrick had declared his willingness to violate ABC’s of real estate trading, as defined by Blake in the movie – Always Be Closing.
Thus, despite what he believed, Kendrick’s hypertrophied sense of business-related ethics really did affect his ability to rationalize. And, it is specifically one’s lesser ability to perceive surrounding reality through the lenses of rationale, which is capable of causing such an individual to assume perceptional ignorance as to the part of his or her existential mode. The validity of this statement is being illustrated by the character of Shelly Levene from “Glengarry Glen Ross”.
As we have mentioned earlier, this person never had a doubt that it was his God’s given right to be treated ‘morally’ by his superiors: “(Levene): You are going to fire bottom men on the list? (Williamson): That’s the way it is and I don’t make the rules – the rules come from downtown” (00.23.02). However, after having realized that there was simply no way for him to be left on the list, without closing deals on given leads, Levene could not come up with anything better, as the mean of reinstalling ‘justice’, but breaking into his own office at night and stealing all the premium leads. However, it is not the fact that Levene had stolen these leads, which deems this character particularly pathetic, but the fact that he let himself believe that he never did it.
The conversation that took place between him and Williamson, at the end of the movie, reveals that Levene continued to believe that he had nothing to do with the stealing of good leads until the very end: “I’m not cut out to be a thief. I’m cut out to be a salesman” (01.26.20). Why would Levene deny the fact that he committed a theft even to himself? The answer to this question would be the same as the answer to a question as to why, despite their openly professed belief in ‘Christian values’, televangelists continue to extort money from senior citizens in particularly blatant manner, with the thought that they do something immoral never even occurring to them – once a particular individual adopts ‘morality’ as the instrument of addressing life’s challenges, the workings of his or her mind become grossly distorted. Therefore, even though a very little commonality can be found between Kendrick and Levene, in regards to how both characters would go about selling real estate, their professional attitudes appear to closely match each other – both: Kendrick and Levene, genuinely believed in morality as an essential element of business. When Preston asked Kendrick about how he was going to manage the workforce under his supervision, Kendrick replied: “A little moral authority, and a lot of force of will. That’s how” (2002, 38). It goes without saying, of course, that Kendrick never bothered to specify on what ground his moral authority would be based, just as Levene never bothered to come with the rationale-based argument as to why he should not have been getting laid off.
Conclusion
The analysis of how three characters from the movie interrelate with three characters from the novel, conducted earlier, allow us to define a primary obstacle of the way of real estate sellers striving to gain professional excellence – their deep-seated psychological complexes, which derive out of these people’s affiliation with a so-called ‘moral values’. In business, there can be only one ethics-related rule – the prospect of generating a monetary profit overweighs just about all considerations of morality, which might be applicable under the set of specific circumstances. Just as the time spent in jail dispels one’s illusions as to reality of a variety of many sophistically sounding but utterly meaningless notions, such as multiculturalism, one’s time spent in working for a particular real estate agency, reveals the mythical subtleties of a so-called ‘business ethics’.
However, it would be wrong to think that business activities, associated with selling real estate and land, are being immoral by definition. In fact, it is namely the practice of encouraging rich people to invest their money into the economy by purchasing real estate and land, which can be thought of as the only morally justified professional pursuit, on the part of agents – even when investors do end up losing their money on the account of their cooperation with these agents. The reason for this is simple – such real estate sellers’ activities do contribute to the economic well-being of a nation, as whole.
Bibliography
Foster, Sam. Alpha Male: A Tale of the Battle of Commerce. Santa Barbara: Fithian Press, 2002. Print.
Geva, Aviva ‘Myth and Ethics in Business’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11.4 (2001): 575-597. Print.
Glengarry Glen Ross. Dir. James Foley. Perfs. Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Alec Baldwin. New Line Cinema, 1992.